A New York Times article by A. G. Sulzberger and Trip Gabriel notes:
TUCSON — Many people had a glimpse of the deep delusions and festering anger of Jared L. Loughner, but none seemed in a better position to connect the dots than officials at Pima Community College.
After the release of detailed reports the college kept of Mr. Loughner’s bizarre outbursts and violent Internet fantasies, the focus has turned to whether it did all it could to prevent his apparent descent into explosive violence.
In September, Pima suspended Mr. Loughner and told him not to return without a psychologist’s letter certifying that he posed no danger. But it took no steps to mandate that he have a psychiatric evaluation, which in Arizona is easier than in many states.
Laura J. Waterman, the clinical director of the Southern Arizona Mental Health Corporation in Tucson, criticized Pima officials for not seeking an involuntary evaluation. “Where does it reach a level where you say this person shouldn’t be a part of any community and we have a responsibility to do something about that?” she said…
In a previous post, headed “Arizona Assassin Should Have Been in Psychiatric Treatment,” I wrote that “the real issue underlying the Arizona congressional assassination attempt and mass-murder tragedy [is] an insane legal system that largely leaves it up to psychotics themselves to decide whether to seek or undergo treatment for their mental illness[.]”
Arizona law, however, provides that “Any responsible individual may apply for a court-ordered evaluation of a person who is alleged to be, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or to others, persistently or acutely disabled, or gravely disabled and who is unwilling or unable to undergo a voluntary evaluation.”
The key language in the Arizona statute is not the phrase “a danger to self or to others,” which is a typical legal standard, or the words “gravely disabled,” but rather the lower legal threshold of “persistently or acutely disabled.” Additionally, just about anyone can ask the Arizona courts to compel an evaluation of someone’s mental state.
In an article headed “Before Tucson rampage, a powerful law went unused,” Andrew Longstreth of Reuters Legal writes:
As evidence mounts that Jared Lee Loughner exhibited disturbing behavior months before the rampage in Tucson, it’s increasingly clear that Arizona authorities could legally have detained him for psychiatric evaluation and treatment — and potentially have been able to avert the tragedy. But officials in other states might not have had that power…
Arizona has one of the least restrictive laws when it comes to detaining apparently mentally ill people against their will. Under the state’s broad involuntary-commitment statute, the government can mandate in-patient treatment for anyone determined to be “persistently or acutely disabled.” That could include a broad range of seemingly troubled individuals. By comparison, many other states limit involuntary commitment only to people shown to be a danger to themselves or others, or who are found to be completely unable to take care of themselves…
In Arizona, virtually anyone who had suspected that Loughner had mental problems and needed help could have filed an application to a state-licensed healthcare agency for a court-ordered evaluation…
The area of involuntary-commitment law highlights a tension within any democracy: balancing the rights of the individual against public-safety concerns. A landmark 1979 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Addington v. Texas, made it harder for the government to commit people against their will, requiring officials to justify any such detention with “clear and convincing” evidence. Earlier, the standard had been a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is used in most civil cases…
When states first enacted statutes relating to involuntary commitment — in the late 1960s and early 1970s — the emphasis was on protecting the rights of the mentally ill. But beginning in the 1980s, partly in response to John Hinckley’s assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, the pendulum started to swing the other way. Some states began amending their laws to broaden the range of circumstances under which an individual could be involuntarily committed.
Arizona amended its law in 2002, and the statute’s constitutionality has never been challenged…
